The document is not up to date.
This document is out of date. stood and maintained that the squirrel was on that side I found myself taking part with the side which denied the squirrel’s visibility on the other side and after much verbal contention I said let us end the dispute by making the experiment of looking and so saying I walked around the tree and saw the squirrel on the other side
So what does pragmatism mean? Well, it might make us think of a pragmatic person with a serious disposition who thinks about every decision in methodical and practical terms. Now they might not be the most fun at parties, but they always know when it’s time to pack it up. Not quite a full-on optimist or pessimist, but a realist who looks at life in honest terms. Their name is probably something like Marshall or Madison.
And while this is the conventional understanding of pragmatism, it’s actually so much more: a whole philosophical tradition with a focus on practical consequences. It’s also maybe the most American brand of philosophy: the apple pie to existentialism’s apricot cocktail, if you will.
Now, for all the time that we’ve spent talking about philosophers, most of them have been European, or if not schooled in European schools of thought, stuff like existentialism, phenomenology, post-modernism, Marxism, or critical theory. We’re very aware we’ve been a little eurocentric in the philosophers we’ve talked about over the years, so we’re going to branch out and try to do better. Thanks for those of you who’ve kind of poked us and said, “Hey, do better!” We appreciate it. Poke away, baby, poke away - but not in person! If you see me in person and you poke me physically, like I’m a child, I’ll equalize you and it’ll change your life forever.
It might seem like European philosophers are the ones asking all of the big questions - you know, stuff like what’s the meaning of existence, is there a point to life, is there such a thing as truth? - and for much of my education I kind of thought this was the case. We might assume that American philosophers like the pragmatist spend their time talking about boring and practical questions, and not the sort of deep and edgy stuff that makes bros get Nietzsche tattoos.
If you’re a bro with a Nietzsche tattoo (or to be fair, any type of philosophy tattoo), please let us know about it in the comments. What does it say? Where is it on your body? If you want to send pics to us, that’s cool too, but that’s a decision you’re gonna have to make for yourself.
But what if the American pragmatists have way more in common with their edgy European cousins than we realized? And if so, how have Americans been missing out on some interesting philosophical action right here on our home turf? Let’s find out in this Wisecrack Edition on pragmatism, the most American philosophy.
Let’s start by getting some terms nailed down. Pragmatism is often seen as an alternative to optimism and pessimism - a sort of serious or realist attitude towards life. It’s a more down-to-earth type of thinking rather than some head-in-the-clouds philosophy. While classical philosophers might ponder the ontological conditions of existence, the pragmatist is thinking about the real conditions of modern human existence in the here and now - and this is a good thing for those who might think that philosophy can often run the risk of getting a bit impractical. We see this thinking in those who might say that a degree in philosophy is about as useful as a degree in underwater basket weaving.
In contrast, the pragmatist tradition is less concerned with thinking their way from concrete example to abstract truths and more interested in the practical implications of our thoughts and beliefs. Now, the philosopher most associated with pragmatism is William James, who explains that pragmatic thinking can resolve or even dissolve many classical philosophical problems. He explained the importance of pragmatism in a story from 1904 about an experience he had while camping some years ago:
Being with a camping party in the mountains, I returned from a solitary ramble to find everyone engaged in a ferocious metaphysical dispute. The corpus of the dispute was a squirrel - a live squirrel supposed to be clinging to one side of a tree trunk while over against the tree’s opposite side a human being stood and maintained that the squirrel was on that side. I found myself taking part with the side which denied the squirrel’s visibility on the other side and after much verbal contention I said: Let us end the dispute by making the experiment of looking and so saying I walked around the tree and saw the squirrel on the other side.